Vol. 15 · pages 91–95

74 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. R. U. Singh (Uttar Pradesh): May I ask a question, Sir? Is it contended that when control has been exercised, or is being exercised, and directions have been given, Parliament is not competent to discuss the matter ? Mr. Speaker: He is advocating just the reverse. Dr. Ambedkar : Sir, you referred to the question whether there is a Legislature or whether there is no Legislature is a matter which can be taken into consideration in coming to a conclusion. Theoretically, of course, no such consideration can be paid to the existence or non-existence of a Legislature, because the Constitution itself expressly says in Article 385 that where there is no Legislature, the Rajpramukh shall be deemed to be the Legislature. But it may say so, this matter whether there is a local Legislature where the particular point could be agitated or not, was taken into consideration by your predecessor in dealing with questions during the last war. As you remember, Sir, in 1939 when the war was declared, the Congress party which was the governing party in the various provinces resigned on account of certain differences between the party and the Government, and consequently, section 93 was applied. Here certain Members asked certain questions with regard to the administration in the Provinces as conducted by the Governor and his Advisers. It was then held that it was right and permissible for Members of the Central Assembly to ask questions for information with regard to the administration in the Provinces where there was no Legislature functioning. I remember having read the proceedings, and much emphasis was laid on the fact—not on the legal fact, but as a de facto position—that since the people have no opportunity to ventilate there grivances before a properly constituted Legislative, that in itself was an additional ground for permitting questions being asked in the Central Legislature about provincial administrations. So technically it would not be right to take this into consideration because the Rajpramukh is the Legislature. But I say, technicalities in a matter of this sort, should not be allowed to come in, much as some hon. Members might like to.

75PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Speaker: At this point, may I ask whether he would place question for information on the same footing as a discussion ? Dr. Ambedkar: As I said, the precedents which I have collected refer only to questions. According to Sir N. N. Sarcar which is the authority I have relied on, the matter, can be discussed, the propriety or otherwise of a direction can be discussed. It seems to me that as he has used the word “discussion” it would be large enough to include even an adjournment motion. Now, Sir, I come to the other question which you have been good enough to put to me, “What is the scope of article 371 ? ” Now, Sir, reading article 371, I should like to point out one important matter and it is this, that article does not cast upon the Government of India the duty of having general control. It is not an article which imposes a duty. It is an article which permits the Government of India to give directions. Now, Sir, this distinction which I am making is a very important distinction and it must be very clearly borne in mind. Shri Kamath (Madhya Pradesh): May I point out that the language used in Article 371 is— “…….. the Government of every State………..shall be under the general control …….. etc, etc.” Dr. Ambedkar: ‘Shall be’ means what ? It is the duty of the State to be under. There is no duty on the Central Government. Shri Kamath: There is mutuality. Dr. Ambedkar: No, no mutuality at all. Now, the position is this. That distinction is important from this point of view. When there is the duty cast to do a certain thing, then a motion of censure could be passed either upon the mis-performance of the duty or upon the failure to perform the duty. But if it is agreed that this article merely permits the Government of India, in the interest of better administration, to issue on certain occasions or in certain situations, certain directions telling the Provincial Government that they may do this or they may not do that, then I am

76 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES sure about it that the only question that can arise for consideration is, what direction was given, whether the direction was proper, and whether any steps were taken to see that the directions were carried out. If the Central Government in its wisdom, in its discretion, felt that notwithstanding the fact that there were elements in the situation which called for the issue of an order, did not think it necessary, proper or wise to give a direction, then the Central Government could not be called to account for failure to do so. That, I submit, is a distinction which must be borne in mind. Pandit Kunzru: How does my friend come to that conclusion ? Dr. Ambedkar: That is how I read it. My friend, as I said, may read it differently ; I know, and people who are, if I may say so, more enthusiastic than cautious may probably like to give a more stretched meaning to this article. But looking at it from this point of view, from the fact that the Constitution has vested the States with the right to administer their affairs, and has only given what may be called in the case of States in Part B certain residuary powers to give directions on certain matters and on certain occasions, this power which may be exercised, as I said, under article 371 must be of a very limited character. My submission, therefore, is that although as I read article 371, I cannot help accepting the conclusion that it does admit the possibility of discussing a matter relating to the administration of States in Part B, it must be of a very narrow character. That is all I have to say. The Minister of Transport and Railways (Shri Gopalaswami): I only want to refer to one particular point. If you are going to give a general ruling on the applicability of article 371, its interpretation and the admissibility of an adjournment motion, based upon that article, I should like you, Sir, to defer your ruling till other Members like me have put certain points before you. But if you are going to reject this motion on the short ground on which the Hon. Law Minister ended his speech, I need not waste the time of the House by puting these points before you.

77PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Speaker: I will tell him what is passing in my mind. I do not propose to hurry up any decision. I have heard the Hon. Law Minister, I have heard his point of view, and if other Members are anxious to address on the purely constitutional aspect of it, without going into the merits, I am prepared to hear them; but that discussion should be of a very short duration. I have not yet made up my mind as to ……… Dr. Tek Chand (Punjab): Shall we do it today or on some other day? This question raises very important ……. Mr. Speaker: I have not finished. The hon. Member will please let me finish first, and then he will see that I entirely agree with him, and that I am going to do what he wishes to be done. The point I was coming to is this. I am restricting myself only to the facts of the present case, and I want to know whether I have understood the Hon. Law Minister correctly. He has given his views on the wider issues about the scope and there might be, as he says, occasions when the Centre may exercise this power; but am I clear in understanding him this way that, supposing no directions are given by the Centre or no control is exercised, then the present motion would not be in order. Is that his conclusion? Dr. Ambedkar: That is my view. Mr. Speaker: The other position I want to get clarified was about the words ‘general control’. He stated that the word ‘general’ means the control extending to the whole administration. Dr. Ambedkar: And not detailed control, not over day to day administration. Mr. Speaker: That is what I wanted to be clear about. Subject to the general policy laid down by the Centre, the States will have perfect autonomy. Dr. Ambedkar: But with the further fact that if the Government of India is satisfied that the directions are not carried out, then the other provisions will come into operation.

78 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Speaker: That is a different matter. But no question for a discussion can arise in this House unless the power in Article 371 is exercised by the Centre.